The Communist Manifesto

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Marx's biggest failure, though, was failing to foresee that the very victories of the workers in capitalism would lead to them failing to take the final step to becoming the ruling class. Ironic that the very weapons forged to build socialism became a hindrance.

Or this wasn't Marx' failure at all since there's not much reason for class warfare once capitalism moved away from the 19th century style.

In a working civil society there's a political process you can use to work for changes. That isn't maybe as fast or as spectacular as a revolution, but then it's a lot more peaceful than most revolutions.

[chequita guevara]

Class warfare is not something someone decides to do or not do. It is how class society operates. The only problem is that in the West, the working class has largely surrendered.

Nor can you peacefully evolve your way to socialism. Were that possible, it would have been done. Instead what happens is that when the reformists even look like they're getting serious about threatening private property, the ruling class sinks the economy and forces the reformists to back off. If that doesn't work, they call in the military and overthrow the government.

[onodera]

Gah, I left my post about communism at work. Will post it tomorrow.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Class warfare is not something someone decides to do or not do. It is how class society operates. The only problem is that in the West, the working class has largely surrendered.

If you buy the Marxian model to describe society and its development that is a valid point. Just that it isn't the only one out there.

[chequita guevara]

It is not the Marxian theory of society. It is the theory of Giambattista Vico, and it predates Marx by about 100 years. It was the view of classical political economy, and while there are other models out there, they simply don't have the explanatory power of that model.

[Patroklos]

the ruling class sinks the economy

Please provide one example of this.

[chequita guevara]

France, 1980
Chile, 1970-73

I gave you two, got change?

[Patroklos]

How about you be more specific, "France 1980" is a little vague for google.

Though honestly if that is all you have, two instances in 100 years, you point fails.

[Cort Haus]

More obviously, if a socialist-lead revolution shows any chance of succeeding, external capitalist powers declare war on it to beat the economy into failure.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You did ask for "one example", to be fair.

[Patroklos]

You did ask for "one example", to be fair.

I did, unfortunelty Che failed to provide one.

His 1970 Chile example, for instance...

Following his election, indigenous and peasant forces across the country violently took control of ranches, forcibly fulfilling Allende's land redistribution promises.

In the first year of Allende's term, the short-term economic results of Minister of the Economics Pedro Vuskovic's expansive monetary policy were unambiguously favorable: 12% industrial growth and an 8.6% increase in GDP, accompanied by major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these results were not sustained and in 1972 the Chilean escudo had runaway inflation of 140%. The combination of inflation and government-mandated price-fixing led to the rise of black markets in rice, beans, sugar, and flour, and a "disappearance" of such basic commodities from supermarket shelves.[3]

In other words, after taking power a leftist government ran the country's economy into the groupd. Mugabe would be proud. Oddly enough, as many times as this scenario repeats itself we still have Che's running around.

Che

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It is not the Marxian theory of society. It is the theory of Giambattista Vico, and it predates Marx by about 100 years. It was the view of classical political economy, and while there are other models out there, they simply don't have the explanatory power of that model.

Marx certainly describes history as one of class struggles (I think it is even in the manifesto where he says so). If he has it from the other guy fine but it's a core part of his thinking.

As for "explanatory power" well the core prob is that the practical development of modern (capitalist) societies went differently.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Re: The Communist Manifesto

Originally posted by Cort Haus
For me, one relevance and importance of Marx today is the reminder that leftist politics was once about advancing the forces of production, rather than holding them back, which is the preferred position of many contemporary leftists, with their adoption of the reactionary and bourgeois green agenda.

I don't know what you mean when you say that Marxist politics was about advancing the forces of production, rather than holding them back.

Also, today there are other issues in addition to economic exploitation. There are consumer and green issues as well as others.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
More obviously, if a socialist-lead revolution shows any chance of succeeding, external capitalist powers declare war on it to beat the economy into failure.

Eh, more likely the capitalists will start a war between nations that will distract people from the communist movement.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Yes and no. We benefit as consumers but lose out as workers, as we lose our high paying manufacturing jobs.

We lose out on light manufacturing, we still have a lot of heavy manufacturing(in fact, there are manufacturing job shortages in this country), and let's face it, "Textile worker" is not a "High paying manufacturing job".